Which of the Axis Powers could have lasted the longest?

[Elfwine]

Please, no straw-man arguments and demeaning, that would be nice.

Trying not to use any. Genuine apologies for any offense.

Firstly, I never said the Germany army is a "sleek efficient machine".

Second, resources in this case are irrelevant if there is someone better able to produce the goods, what is important is trade.

You are, however, describing the German army as an example of how to do things - sleek efficient machine is my phrase for what you seem to be aiming at, since Hitler's massive overexpansion to the point of seriously diluting quality obviously isn't.

Trade requires Italy have to something to offer for those goods.

What would that be? What does Italy have to offer?

Thirdly, if you produce enough weapons to poorly arm X2 times people, you can cut the number of people you arm in half, sell the now extra things like food, clothes, rifles, ammo, old cannons and such, not to mention free a great deal of labor reserve and use the extra money to do things like, i dont know, buy better tanks and artillery from a country like, maybe, Germany? Instead of arming X2 amount of guys poorly you can instead arm X1 amount of guys better. Simple.

Yeah, sell the out of date and not very good to begin with rifles, ammo, old cannons and such and realize you still don't have even designs up to date.

Also, Italian army was, as you most likely know, organized to appear bigger on paper, don't ask me why, perhaps Musso was compensating for something. This lead to very poor coordination and troop size, this all or most of his generals knew, but he over rules them. The problem in the African theater was much less about how much you can transport, the goods supplied were ample, but that there were far too many people to feed / cloth / get water to for any real push. Cut the amount of guys by 75% and you can free up A LOT of logistical capacity even if you add absolutely no trucks. It is possible if from the start Italy realises that the whole militia thing is not going to work in africa. This requires Mussolini to even slightly listen to his generals, a huge massive POD I know.

Given Mussolini? Yes, a huge passive POD for him to listen to advice to this extent. 75% cuts are huge.

Italian army need not be massively more effective to occupy Suez, Levant and Iraq, Guarantee that no allies can land anywhere in the E-Med and Harrass Baku during 41. Though invasion of S-Su is near impossible due to logistics, nothing stops bombing runs to reduce and destroy the facilities there.

I disagree with the first part of this, judging by their performance OTL. And the Italian air force leaves something to be desired - in quantity and quality.

Combined with significantly more difficulty with lend-lease through Iran and if we assume Japan would also block the lend-lease through E-Su and Finland cuts the N-Su train lines and SU collapses in 42-43 All this POD would take is a better Italian army (very easy, in fact ridiculously easy) and Japanese co-ordination with the other Axis nations to just stop the shipments to E-Su, nothing more.

An Italian army enough better to do what you're proposing would not be easy at all. It would need massive improvements - of the difficult-to-do sort. For instance, "The 'main battle tank' of the ITalian army, when it entered the Second World War, was the Fiat L.3, of three and a half tons, with no radio, little vision, and only two machine guns - this at a time when the latest German and French tank designs were close upon twenty tons and had much heavier weaponry."

This is so far from even adequate as to be comical.

And Japan's ability to block stuff in the eastern Soviet Union is from...what? Where does it take the military resources to do so? Its not as if it has lots of ships and planes just waiting for something to do.

By standardizing it. I know its incredible to assume that Hitler would actually go for something like standard modular design instead of the massive cacophony of different calibers, design and sizes. Germany adopts the Soviet style of building roughly 1-2 tanks in mass and upgrading the whole force every few years instead of picemeal every year and Germany puts up a seriously stiff fight. Also once again, very easy to do, its a matter of design philosophy.

Yes, it is incredible to assume that Hitler actually focuses on something organized and efficient because it would be completely unlike what he did OTL. Changing the design philosophy may be simple mouse clicks in a computer game, or something similar - but it would take a massive change to the way the Nazis actually did things.

From taking a tiny fraction from the German army. The minors folded so easily because they felt, and rightly so, that they were treated very poorly. By giving a small token to them from time to time you can keep them in the fight much more seriously. Equipment and training for even 1 German style armor division would be a serious moral boost to a country like Romania in my opinion. The effect of giving the minors better equipment would be felt in their better alignment to nazism that would outweigh the minor loss in equipment to germany. Keep the axis minors content and you keep them fighting.[/quiote]

A tiny fraction from the already underequipped German army. Not a good idea. One fully armored Panzer division's worth of tanks (I presume you mean a full strength Panzer division, not the skeletons that were the result of OTL's mistakes) won't come out of nowhere.

Not really, world conquest can be done step by step, not all at once. All it takes is for Germany to adopt a style of X lebensraum for now, build it up, bigger army, then X+Y lebensraum tomorrow. There are not massive changes, but the idea that the Nazi/Axis leaders were all incompetent people is, in my opinion, wrong.

Unfortunately, your opinion ignores the way the Nazi leaders (I know more on Germany than Italy and Japan, so I'm focusing on it) actually acted. They were that incompetent - or at least arrogant. For that to be different is itself a massive change.

There were some massively stupid once in the mix and some bad decisions. But overall, even going for a Brest livotsk type peace is not out of the question. It would leave Germany the largest its ever been with absolute dominance over mainland Europe. And SU offered it in 41-42. What I am saying is that instead of hitler going all http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoMgnJDXd3k hollywood style. He goes "this good, we sit back and let ze allies fall to decadence and then we go at it again". Thats all it takes, Hitler going "We'll settle for this for the next 2-4 decades!" and the axis effectively win the war.

Yeah, all it takes is Hitler actually being sane, which is a huge freakin' point of departure. This is like saying all it takes for the Confederacy to win the Civil War is to make better use of its black population.

Could it be done? Theoretically. In practice? That's the problem. In practice, we're talking about major changes and treating them as "minor" because for us its easy to imagine just accepting some sort of Brest-Livostsk peace because we're not sociopathic meglomaniac monsters who genuinely think they're better than the rest of the world.

Yes, these things together would make for a very excellent HOI2 campaign.

Some of these might not be outright impossible, in my opinion - but even modest changes in their direction are actually huge changes in practice.

For instance, a Hitler willing to accept tactical retreat as a legitimate strategic decision is an entirely different Hitler in terms of his ideas on strategy, the "right" thing to do, his attitude towards his generals, and his willingness to let them make decisions independently (the distinction between the last two being that #4 also means Hitler accepts independent minded subordinates making their own decisions, not just that he respects them but is still a micromanager)

 

[Gosing]

Some of these might not be outright impossible, in my opinion - but even modest changes in their direction are actually huge changes in practice.

For instance, a Hitler willing to accept tactical retreat as a legitimate strategic decision is an entirely different Hitler in terms of his ideas on strategy, the "right" thing to do, his attitude towards his generals, and his willingness to let them make decisions independently (the distinction between the last two being that #4 also means Hitler accepts independent minded subordinates making their own decisions, not just that he respects them but is still a micromanager)

Oh, definately some of them could work in theory: a true strategic withdrawl right after Stalingrad could possible force the Soviets to peace (thoguh I have my doubts about that, personally). The problem is Hitler and all of his possible successors were adamantly opposed to retreat. Similarly with the treatment of minorities, all of the Feldmarschalls were happy to let the Einsatzgruppen tdo their bussiness so long as they didn't slow up the main army, and the Heer was given condoms before Barbarossa; there's only so well you can treat conquered peoples if, in the end, your commanding officers don't give a shit about them.

 

[Paul V McNutt]

If it remained neutral Facist Italy could have lasted as long as Franco's Spain. Italy was not considered a threat. The invasion of Ethiopa brought international outrage but no threat of war.As far as I can tell Mussolini got off scot free when he invaded Albania. The ambitions of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would inevitably lead to war.

 

[T3h_shammy]

Eh, my guess is it would have to be Imperial Japan. They started fighting a large-scale war 2 years before one broke out in Europe and were still fighting both superpowers months after Germany had given up the ghost and were still kicking ass in China into 1944. Given that from OTL, a victorious Imperial Japan would have been much scarier than Nazi Germany because where the Nazis couldn't hack four years of consistent, large-scale warfare Japan hacked four years of it before starting another four.

Everyone realizes that Japan was facing a trifle of the forces Germany was right?

It was Germany first for a reason, because Germany had significantly more potential to do damage.

 

[John Farson]

Except that China war was on the scale that Germany couldn't do very much with at its strongest. The early battles of that war were also unmitigated Japanese victories,

Yes. They were also completely meaningless victories since the only way that Japan could win in China was to get Chiang Kai-shek to the negotiating table. Which he would never do in a million years since a) it would most likely result in a coup against him within the KMT and b) Chiang knew that he could trade space for time, especially when the Americans became more and more pissed at the Japanese for their behaviour in China.

Japan also proved able to give the Allies fights a lot longer than they expected or predicted. The fighting in the Philippines was still ongoing at the time of surrender, they completely curbstomped Mao in 1942 and then Jiang in 1944, and they gave the Allies a six-weeks fight at Iwo Jima, not the short and bloodless one expected.

They definitely lost it on the battlefield but it wasn't that they weren't good at waging war.

Again, the Japanese gave a good show, and they still lost. The Americans already controlled all the important bits of the Philippines, leaving Yamashita and his forces to rot in the jungles. The Japanese still controlled territory in China. Yay, only the minute that the USSR comes knocking the Japanese forces in China would be assraped, as did happen. As for Iwo Jima, the Americans lost almost 7,000 men whereas the Japanese garrison was virtually annihilated. Same thing with Okinawa. By the last months of the war the IJA was bleeding itself to death, while more and more American and British reinforcements came all the time.

I'd say that Japan in World War II is overrated, to be honest. The IJN was good, I'll give em that (until they got wiped out), but the IJA? They were only good in fighting poorly armed and led opponents in China and badly defended colonial holdings in SE Asia. Whenever they went up against anyone else...

 

[Paul V McNutt]

When war comes Japan last longest as they did OTl. They were the Allies second priority and they were the most dedicaded. Ask my uncle, he spent late 1945 and early 1946 clearing out guns stored in Japanese caves.

 

[John Farson]

The IJN was Japan's backbone. Once the carrier force was crippled in Midway, Japan was a dead duck no matter which way you put it.

 

[Roslin's Wig]

At the time, the IJN was probably the best naval force in the world, second after the US Navy. If not for the US, they would probably outlast WW2. The IJA was very pragmatic and skilled at battle, but suffered from idiotic leadership.

The IJA, on the other hand, had the same problems as the Italian army. It was swollen and bloated, putting quantity above quality. In order to defeat the Chinese, who were the biggest population on earth, Emperor Mickey Mouse had decided to massively inflate the IJA. Of course, this resulted in a largely under-trained horde of young boys. They were good at raping civilians and destroying weaker enemies like the Chinese, but not much else.

 

[Hkelukka]

Impossible without a military coup that would totally redefine Nazi Germany. Such a coup in and of itself is in fact extremely unlikely without the Germans doing considerably worse with Barbarossa.

As I said, I disagree with this, strongly. All it would take for this to work is for Hitler to call it a day and settle for the largest ever German empire, Largest industry, total dominance over European continent, no realistic threat within 2-3 decades of his knowing to Germany. Double or even Triple times the lebensraum that Germany had before. Including but not limited to most of Ukraine / all of Baltics, and Poland, most of White-Russia. If you believe as a rule that Germany wanted to completely conquer the entire planet in one swoop, then yeah, it is impossible. But if you believe that they could wait and settle for this and strike again when the time is right, then its possible.

All it takes is for Hitler to adopt a style of "We hunted A bear to death, lets eat of it for the cold winter months and hunt THE bear come spring" And fade into history as the greatest leader Germany ever had. And potentially the greatest conqueror ever. In my opinion, it is not only possible, but probable that it happens that way. That it didn't is one of those "moments of incredible luck" that humanity seems to have.

Contrary to popular belief, the Italians weren't prone to bungling everything they laid their hands on-that was largely British propaganda stemming from a single incident. As said, the Heer wasn't efficient at all (another myth; 500 truck models) and anyway the Italians didn't lose in North Africa because of poor troop quality. They lost because of logistics.

To the first part, I have not said so. I have said that the Italian army had too many groundsoldiers with poor equipment when they were fighting a high mobility war in a desert that called for tanks. Italian soldiers were far from crap. Heer was considerably more efficient than the Italian army. Sufficiently much so that adopting German style of blizkrieg even in smaller quantities would result in a significantly improved Italian army, to the point that UK would lose in Africa.

Italians lost in Africa because bringing food, clothes, basic supplies, weapons and the likes to the number of soldiers they had rendered bringing tanks and heavier equipment impossible. They lost because their logistics network was supplying useless people with nearly useless goods for a long period of time. If you cut back on the people and basic goods that need supplying, you can increase the number of tanks and actually useful people significantly. They lost because they had too many people to "feed/cloth/basic supply" in Africa to bring the supplies they really needed (quick assault equipment, specifically desert tanks and oil)

Thus opening the door for a suitable personage (Molotov, Beria, etc) to take the reins temporarily and use the crsis to bat down opposition.

The question with that is this. Does Molotov/Beria have the support / strength of will to keep the country together and absorb the losses they did without folding like Russia in WW1. I do not believe they would, but this is up in the air as one of those things that will never be answered, alas for a multiverseviewer (tm)

This is hardly a "minor" PoD. Even assuming that losing Leningrad would cause the Soviets to magically sue for peace, the Finns had very specific reasons for not attacking Leningrad-they had got what they wanted. They were shaky, unofficial allies with the Germans OTL, and Mannerheim (along with Franco among the most sensible dictators of the period) had no desire to waste thousands of lives on a prize that would go to the Germans anyway.

No. Finns didn't attack Leningrad mostly because Mannerheim adviced strongly against it, (alledgedly to the point of saying he would resign if the attack commences.) A large portion of the Army leadership as well as political leadership was for it. You change the opinion of one person. Mannerheim, significantly enough that he would advice for removal of the soviet at any price and you have this. One guy changing his opinion would change Finland into an all out attack. Which would be sufficient to complete the encirclement of Leningrad and occupy the city before fall of 42, liberate a sizable portion of the German army for 42 push, cut the Murmansk rail. All of these together would free more than 500.000 soldiers against Russia in 1942. (over 300.000 of which would be Germans from the combined North Finland + Leningrad fronts.)

...I'm not even gonna address this one.

Luftwaffe lost a massive amount of pilots and equipment in BOB. UK gained a massive moral boost not to mention experience. You take that away if you develop a very simple missile on a ballistic basis with a range of 50 miles and dot the very north coast of France with them. 50 mile range in 1940 is not only possible, it is remarkably easy, assuming Germany would go for it.

You render away the BOB and turn it into a SOB as in siege of Britain and you have a large difference in the E-Front airplane distribution, not enough to win the war on its own but more than possible. You take the A4 and reduce the range by half and increase the payload instead, push the developement ahead by 2 years and your set. All that would take is that Luftwaffe realises that bombing is idiotic and opts for missiles instead. Once again all this POD would take is a single person changing their mind.

Maybe you've read some source I haven't, but I was under the impression that Germany was constantly researching new U-Boat designs and was building new ones, and that the commanding officers at a beaurocratic and command level were competent and motivated. Anyway, once the US joins in, the Uboatwaffe is doomed.

Disagree. After 43, yes, IF US joins the war then the U-boats are screwed. Before that its so-so.

And yes, the individual officers were qualified and worked well. The resources directed towards U-Boat warfare were less than optimal. And many Naval resources were directed at non essential projects (BB's) Increase U-Boat production in 1938-41, Decrease production in land warfare by 2-3 divs and UK is strangled to death. But hindsight 20-20.

Errrr...they did strike at the same time in OTL.

Japan never striked SU and permitted convoys of lend-lease to Vladivostok. I would call that major lack of coordination. Allowing Lend-Lease to Vladivostok was potentially the single most idiotic decision Japan EVER made in any war.

Again, requires moderation of the Nazis impossible with the OTL setup. Anyway, that wouldn't have changed the war particularily much; the Germans would still treat the locals like crap, and the support the Nazis had early in Barbarossa has been blown vastly out of proportion.

Disagree. There is a difference between being treated like Crap and being executed and/or gassed.

Moderation is not what I am saying. What I am saying is treat them well today, backstab them tomorrow.

AKA: Go Slovakian on their butt.

...I don't quite follow. Vichy would be a German puppet in any event; and they were at peace with Germany in 1940 OTL. If you mena the Fre French, the entire raison d'entre of the state was to fight the Germans; a peace with them for no reason when they aren't even threatened would be idiotic.

Free France loses much of its support if France is already Free. Besides removing a significant portion of German garrisons when France produced little for German consumption save for a few exceptions would free more resources than it would consume. And, the major point is that the allies would have a significantly more difficult time to convince their population of th Evils of Nazism when there would be no GErmans in W-Europe. Free France reason for existence was not to fight Germany, but to free France.

Italy welcomes more or all of the Jews fleeing Germany, gives them full citizenship and all rights and permits, encourages settling in Libya.

...Which means a non-Axis Libya.

or

Mussolini realizes that politics is one thing and administration is another and looks for the best and the brightest Italian administrators regardless of race or religion to boost Italy. Such as Guido Jung.

Again, requires non-Axis Italy.

No. It requires a slightly more liberal Italy, and not even by much, more reading here: http://www.suite101.com/content/jews-in-italy-during-the-holocaust-a144483

Not all Axis members were out for Jews in the way most people seem to think. And for that matter, if Italy made an offer to Germany in 36 to resettle all of German Jews in Italian Libya, it might get through, to quote something from the article I linked:
"In 1940, Italy became Germany’s ally. However, according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Italy “did not willingly cooperate in the Nazi plan to kill the Jews of Europe. Italians generally refused to participate in genocide, or to permit deportations from Italy . . . to the Nazi extermination camps. Italian military officers and officials usually protected Jews. . . Between 1941 and 1943, thousands of Jews escaped to Italy and Italian-occupied territory from German-occupied territory”."

All it would take is a very minor adjustment for this to become reality. You could very realistically see a Israel formed in Libya instead of "Madagascar" And Germany would most likely be very glad to see the Jews be "someone else's problem" All it takes is for Mussolini to have a bit of a playing eye with this issue. Again, not a massive POD.

Thus throwing the whole Whermacht into disarray and delaying Barbarossa until the Soviets are able to take the invasion and throw it back to Moscow?

Not meant to happen in a single strike or just before Barbarossa. Meant as a long term design philosophy aimed at producing standardized goods for the army. Could be implemented as far back as 36 without requiring much. All it takes is for Hitler to decide so. Any POD that requires one person to make one decision is a minor POD. If said decision has a pre-existing point of reference in OTL. Hitler could take a look at the French Grand Army from Napoleon and decide its efficient to have standard equipment for the army. Not a major POD in making it happen. Major in the consequences for sure.

The whole general winter thing is again overstated-while cold had something to do with it, the real reason the Germans were thrown back from Moscow OTL were logistics and overstretch.

I'll respond with this:

On 2 December, part of the 258th Infantry Division advanced to within 15 mi (24 km) of Moscow, and could see the spires of the Kremlin,[87] but by then the first blizzards of the winter began. The Wehrmacht was not equipped for winter warfare. Frostbite and disease caused more casualties than combat, and dead and wounded had already reached 155,000 in three weeks.

How many German soldiers do you think were either injured so badly or killed by the cold winter and disease, that could have been solved in weeks pre-barbarossa with little extra effort between 1941 and 1945?

150.000?

350.000?

700.000?

LEss than at Stalingrad, as much or more? I would tend to believe considerably more than at Stalingrad. Even if we take the 150.000 estimate which would be in the low range, add 150.000 German soldiers to the flanks and the Stalingrad Encirclement is unlikely to succeed. Not to mention the butterflies that ~500.000 more german soldiers would cause in 42-43-44

Again, requires an overhtrow of the Nazi regime.

I disagree, the idea that the "Nazi regime" was clinically incapable of making strategic or tactical plans that included tactical withdrawals for strategic gains relies on the idea that the Nazis were idiots. I disagree on this point.

1) Japan was nearly out of oil in December 1941. By late '42 they wouldn't have been able to fight any war at all.

2) The Soviet Far Eastern sector was fully supplied and armed OTL, and any attack would be reported by the large spy ring in Tokyo. The Japanese would be running into a force larger and more effective then their own, which had already beaten them, and which would offer no real gain besides Vladivostock.

Would accomplish one thing, divert soviet forces, even if not much from the defense of Moscow. And cut Lend-Lease by a portion. Which on its own is not sufficient to immobilize SU, But combined with others i have suggested would be. Japan cuts Vlad. Italy cuts Iran and Finland cuts Murmansk and Su WILL sue for peace. PEace conditions include shipping Oil to JApan in 42. Requires 3 POD's by individuals. Like i said, any single POD is possible but all three, unlikely but not impossible. All 3 would guarantee axis victory, even one would make it possible and 2 would make it probable.

Again, kinda intrinsic to the whole "Nazi" thing.

Here we come to what I dislike about the view on Nazis' that they were all going to be bickering little people with no coordination, like children incapable of doing anything together. I disagree. Hitler tucks on the reigns a few times and this minor kingdoms thing falls apart rapidly. Hitler goes even a bit stalinesque and you will NOT see minor kingdoms.

As this post is getting remarkably long i will reply to the other post in a new one. Try to bear with me here.

 

[Hkelukka]

Trying not to use any. Genuine apologies for any offense.

Non taken, I do prefer discussion of issues over comedy on a serious topic as this.

You are, however, describing the German army as an example of how to do things - sleek efficient machine is my phrase for what you seem to be aiming at, since Hitler's massive overexpansion to the point of seriously diluting quality obviously isn't.

German army in this time period was the best army, they had, by modern standards, massive faults. But the idea was right. They had the right idea and still fleshing out the bugs. While the Italian army was wrong on the very basic deep level. Italian army was fundamentally flawed for the situation it was in, to such a deep and all encompassing failure in planning, their performance was near miraculous considering how deeply flawed their system was.

The basic concept of "the blitz" came, in large part, from Italy. Given right doctrinal direction in 33-36 and a shift to a high mobile offensive war from a low mobility defensive alpine war and Italy would be a different beast entirely during WW2. The fundamental flaw in the Italian army was that it was designed for an entirely different conflict than what it was used in. German army was designed for exactly the conflict it was used in. Therefore German dilution was secondary since they had the primary system right. While Italian Dilution was terminal since a diluted army is slower to adapt when the original goal is found to be inadequate. Or in other words. A trained well equipped army is quicker to adapt than a poorly trained militia army.

Trade requires Italy have to something to offer for those goods.

What would that be? What does Italy have to offer?

Yeah, sell the out of date and not very good to begin with rifles, ammo, old cannons and such and realize you still don't have even designs up to date.

How many much in terms of % can you purhase for one armor division by selling one infantry division? Depending on how you look at it, if you reduce Italian Divs from ~70 to say ~30 you could have a massive overhaul of the remaining forces. Italy did trade as did any other country. What I mean is that they need not produce everything, only import what they need. Italian trade at this point was mostly in basic goods but if you have enough money to poorely arm 70 divs, you have enough to arm 20-30 divs well. Larger garrison force, smaller regular army, larger motor-mech-arm with better equipment is possible. They cant build much of it themselves but they can trade for it in exchange. Austria would be a good trade pre anschluss and Germany post. By 1940 before DW Italy could have Pz III's or IV's. Especially since Italy produced food for export in this period(not much mind you), something that Germany sorely needed.

Italy need not be anywhere NEAR German level of competence or industrial developement to dislodge UK in 1940 from Eqypt/Levant/Iraq.

Given Mussolini? Yes, a huge passive POD for him to listen to advice to this extent. 75% cuts are huge.

I would not call it a huge POD as it is just one guy changing one opinion. To go for a small efficient army over a large ineffective army. If it requires the collaberation of a large group of people to produce the otucome. Say for example assuming that Italy developed the A bomb by 1944 then yes, it would be a huge POD. But really think about it. Is it truly a large POD if it takes one guy that is present with two almost equally supported models to adopt one over the other when both have large support? If that constitutes a large POD then we truly disagree on what is a large POD.

I disagree with the first part of this, judging by their performance OTL. And the Italian air force leaves something to be desired - in quantity and quality.

Where on the map would you say the allies can stop Italy if Alexandria and Cairo falls? Suez? If, for the sake of this POD, the Italian army is as mechanized as i propose and they follow the UK army as it withdraws across Eqypt, while at the same time Iraq mutinies, Syria-Lebanon leaves the allies and all that is left is the Suez with no strategic mobility, Axis ability to land in Lebanon and Syria. With Greece in Axis hands. I would find the Allies very hard pressed to hold onto Suez. At the very least Italy could make any ship transit through Suez suicide for the ships. That would effectively encircle Cypros and make ship based transfers of forces to Syria-Lebanon possible, and even likely. That would mean that the allies would find themselves on the coast of present day Israel, without naval superiority, hit by the luftwaffe and attacked from both across the suez and down through the coast and behind from Iraq. Their position is unteneble and will collapse. UK would lose mid-east and withdraw down through the Nile. Potentially bringing countries like Saudi-Arabia to the axis sphere, and Turkey. Though very unlikely.

Italian Airforce was, for the most part, truly a joke. But airbases in Iraq with free convoy in E-Med and the luftwaffe can do a great deal of the work alongside Italian airplanes. Enough anyway to render Baku effectively out of the game. Nothing like trying to build refineries and oildrills in a hurry under firebombing.

An Italian army enough better to do what you're proposing would not be easy at all. It would need massive improvements - of the difficult-to-do sort. For instance, "The 'main battle tank' of the ITalian army, when it entered the Second World War, was the Fiat L.3, of three and a half tons, with no radio, little vision, and only two machine guns - this at a time when the latest German and French tank designs were close upon twenty tons and had much heavier weaponry."

True, at the present the Italian armor was a Joke, with a capital J. Is it so hard to belive a POD where Mussolini realizes this too and purchases say 300-500 PZ III's and 100-200 PZ IV's, a larger amount of AC's and older PZ and the training and equipment for them before DW? Assuming they sell EVERYTHING for 10-20 divs of infantry and demobilize them. That would be enough to take 3-5 Italian divs and bring them to the German Armor level. Can you imagine what happens during Italian Invasion of Eqypt in 1940?

This is so far from even adequate as to be comical.

Thus, trade for what you cant produce in high quality and build what you can.

And Japan's ability to block stuff in the eastern Soviet Union is from...what? Where does it take the military resources to do so? Its not as if it has lots of ships and planes just waiting for something to do.

Literally all it needs to do is stop use of Vladivostok and tie down any portion of the soviet army long enough for Germany to force a peace treaty that includes oil to Japan. This is a large POD by my definition as it would require changing the minds of at least Hitler to propose such a pact to the Japanese, and for the Japanese to accept it. Thus, this is a large POD, tho possible still unlikely. If the Japanese can be convinced that Germany will win before 1942 when Japan runs out of oil and the peace will include trade of oil to Japan they MIGHT go for it. But that requires an army dominated war council and better coordination. Unlikely but possible.

Yes, it is incredible to assume that Hitler actually focuses on something organized and efficient because it would be completely unlike what he did OTL. Changing the design philosophy may be simple mouse clicks in a computer game, or something similar - but it would take a massive change to the way the Nazis actually did things.

Nazis did things they way they did basically for one reason. The two people in charge wanted them done that way. If the Nazi states were run in a way where the opinion of more than 1 person mattered worth damn, it would be a different debate entirely, but they werent. All it really takes for standardization to happen is for Hitler to say it happens. It does take time and effort so starting standardization in 1941 a few months before barbarossa would fail. But the concept of standardization of military equipment is not a drastic design change. In terms of design philosophy it is considerably less than blizkrieg, CAS or even gas chambers. All it would really take is back in the 1930's when the Nazi's were designing the army from the ground up, they take alook at the logistics for more than 5 minutes.

I am not suggesting they build jet fighters in 1939. What I am suggesting is that they make one tactical improvement to their planning, and that is standardization. The implementation is hard and will take years and should be started 1935 or so. But the POD that it IS started is not hard. As to the effectiveness or organizedness of Hitler and Nazism. I would point to the fact that they did EVERYTHING in an effective and organized manner. Right down from the mass produced gas chambers to the culture of mass duty. A step from everyone wearing jack boots to everyone having similar equipment on the front is not large. Especially since it is a tactically smart decision and is in my opinion, in line with the nazi ideology. Not against it.

A tiny fraction from the already underequipped German army. Not a good idea. One fully armored Panzer division's worth of tanks (I presume you mean a full strength Panzer division, not the skeletons that were the result of OTL's mistakes) won't come out of nowhere.

Equipping all Axis minors with better spoils would require less than 1 German Panzer army. Significantly less so in fact. The good thing with this, from a german perspective is that it will be someone else doing the dying.

To put it in another way. The axis minors had millions of men in the field, most of whom were not very inspired due to lack of gear and motivation. How many of those would be better motivated if the germans actually provided them with GOOD equipment? The increase in motivation would, in my opinion, offset the cost of decreased striking power to the Germans. In the end the increased power of the minors would be greater than the loss to the Germans. This, of course is purely hypothetical and you could be right.

Unfortunately, your opinion ignores the way the Nazi leaders (I know more on Germany than Italy and Japan, so I'm focusing on it) actually acted. They were that incompetent - or at least arrogant. For that to be different is itself a massive change.

In my opinion, no, they weren't. An incompetent ruler can not accomplish the level of conquest the Nazi's did. The same incompetents managed to pull of Molotov-rippentrop, humble the largest land army in the world, both France and SU. Nearly strangle UK and occupy or effectively subject the entire continental europe to their whim. How difficult is it for the same people that signed a temporary peace in 1939 to do so again in 1941? Stalin offered it, all it takes and I mean ALL it takes is for Germany to take it and be content and the war in Europe is effectively over. For them to take it is no different than Molotov-Ribbentrop, a brilliant diplomatic move to stabilize one front so they can focus on another, the UK. And now, Germany has Ukrainian Grain too.

Yeah, all it takes is Hitler actually being sane, which is a huge freakin' point of departure. This is like saying all it takes for the Confederacy to win the Civil War is to make better use of its black population.

Here is the fundemental point of difference. I do not believe Hitler was insane in the tactical or strategic level by 41. Yes by 43-44 he was beyond anything that could be called sanity. Due in large part to being medicated with... not so healthy things.

In 1941 Hitler was still very much the same vile "demonic" man he had always been, capable and in fact genious in the use of feign retreats and cloak and dagger. By this point he was losing it slowly but was still very much capable of it.

Could it be done? Theoretically. In practice? That's the problem. In practice, we're talking about major changes and treating them as "minor" because for us its easy to imagine just accepting some sort of Brest-Livostsk peace because we're not sociopathic meglomaniac monsters who genuinely think they're better than the rest of the world.

Stalin was definitely up there in "sociopathic meglomaniac monsters" But he held the cold war for years and didnt blink. And here is also the point of difference. In my opinion Hitler was a cold calculating psychopath who could very well accept what is proposed if he believes that it would benefit him in the long run. But the difference is in how we view him. In my opinion he was a brilliant leader who was one of the most "demonic" people the world has ever seen, he managed to occupy the entire european continent and was brought down mostly by sheer luck and if anything, his meth medicine. Many people seem to think he was a nutterbutter who just happaned to conquer the continental Europe and nearly usher in a dark age the likes of which has not been seen since the 1100.

Some of these might not be outright impossible, in my opinion - but even modest changes in their direction are actually huge changes in practice.

For instance, a Hitler willing to accept tactical retreat as a legitimate strategic decision is an entirely different Hitler in terms of his ideas on strategy, the "right" thing to do, his attitude towards his generals, and his willingness to let them make decisions independently (the distinction between the last two being that #4 also means Hitler accepts independent minded subordinates making their own decisions, not just that he respects them but is still a micromanager)

Hitler accepted tactical defeat after the beer hall putz, he accepted tactical defeat in BOB, he almost accepted defeat in Narvik. Many times when an obstacle was placed in front of him he stopped, retreated and came back stronger until he got what he wanted. This is a person who was used to retreats, falling back and coming back stronger. In my opinion the reason this changes was that hitler in 1942 was not the Hitler of 1938. Why? In my opinion two things, stress and Meth.

If anything Hitler before 1938 was a remarkably cool calm calculating man, this same man agreed to a non aggression pact with his worse enemy, someone who led a nation he swore to destroy only a few years before, his main enemy. Hitler had NO trouble accepting short term defeat for long term gain. His deterioration in 1939-1945, to me, speaks of a man in the grips of a meth induced psychosis that slowly ate him up from the inside.

If anything the reason the allies won the war was Hitlers poisoning via Meth. But, this as with antyhing else, is up for debate. In my opinion Axis winning the war was uncomfortably close, a photo finish.

 

[Wendell]

Without the war, it's Japan, hands down. The Japanese could feed themselves, instilled discipline in its armed forces, and operated a very regimented society. Without the war, it could have survived, but may not have been a pleasant place to live before too long depending on how it evolved following an inevitable loss in China.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

At the time, the IJN was probably the best naval force in the world, second after the US Navy. If not for the US, they would probably outlast WW2. The IJA was very pragmatic and skilled at battle, but suffered from idiotic leadership.

The IJA, on the other hand, had the same problems as the Italian army. It was swollen and bloated, putting quantity above quality. In order to defeat the Chinese, who were the biggest population on earth, Emperor Mickey Mouse had decided to massively inflate the IJA. Of course, this resulted in a largely under-trained horde of young boys. They were good at raping civilians and destroying weaker enemies like the Chinese, but not much else.

1. IJN was a strong navy but wasn't the best second only to the US, the British would like to have a word with you on that one, it's hard enough for resource-starved Japan to sustain its overseas empire without stepping on American toes, but its outright impossible to avoid upsetting the British and the Americans at some point, the two have a pretty much unchallenged naval superiority in the region and they don't take kindly to someone that challenges said status quo. Regionally even the Australian Navy would put up quite a fight against the IJN.

2. The Emperor had no official power over the military nor did he ever do such things. Tojo was essentially a military dictator who had influence over such policy decisions. Hirohito was, as is standard for Japanese emperors, a ceremonial figurehead, a highly-respected figurehead, but a figurehead nonetheless, he wanted to surrender for quite a while before the official government did though his sentiments were kept hidden by propagandists.

 

[Thande]

It's hard with Japan to say exactly when that "regime" would fall, what constitutes a "change of regime" there?

My instinct is to say Italy because, if it had stayed neutral, I could see it just turning out like Franco's Spain, whereas Nazi policies were predicated on the idea that conquest was coming soon to pay off debts so would be unsustainable in peacetime.

 

[Wendell]

It's hard with Japan to say exactly when that "regime" would fall, what constitutes a "change of regime" there?

My instinct is to say Italy because, if it had stayed neutral, I could see it just turning out like Franco's Spain, whereas Nazi policies were predicated on the idea that conquest was coming soon to pay off debts so would be unsustainable in peacetime.

Italy had a colonial aspect and aura of grandure that Franco and his regime lacked. Even withouth World War II, an Italian war against Greece or Yugoslavia cannot be ruled out, and an Italian loss in its balkan adventures all but assured. This sets Italy apart from Germany or Japan because in many respects, the country was all bark and no bite; Italy was never industrially or commercially the power it viewed itself to be, and the piper would have to be paid before long.

 

[Roslin's Wig]

Blah blah

1. The IJN kicked the asses of the British Navy, and even took Singapore without a fight. The Pacific War was won by the Americans, end of story. Of course, the Brits weren't able to use their full strength since they were at war with Germany, but the Japanese were also fighting a two-front war.

2. Tojo didn't have that much power, he only controlled the biggest out of several factions. Emperor Hirohito was smarter and more devious than you think, and responsible for ordering war crimes (no matter how much General Macky tried to make him look like an innocent puppet monarch). You're right that Hirohito wasn't a real dictator, but he saw which way the political winds were blowing in Japan, and willingly went along with them.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

1. The IJN kicked the asses of the British Navy, and even took Singapore without a fight. The Pacific War was won by the Americans, end of story. Of course, the Brits weren't able to use their full strength since they were at war with Germany, but the Japanese were also fighting a two-front war.

2. Tojo didn't have that much power, he only controlled the biggest out of several factions. Emperor Hirohito was smarter and more devious than you think, and responsible for ordering war crimes (no matter how much General Macky tried to make him look like an innocent puppet monarch). You're right that Hirohito wasn't a real dictator, but he saw which way the political winds were blowing in Japan, and willingly went along with them.

The British weren't rearmed by the time the Japanese were taking them on in their Pacific colonies, if it's an argument over whose navy is better it's Britain plain and simple, that really shouldn't be up for debate. The Japs kicked the crap out of the Americans for the early stages of the war too, basically nobody expected to get blitzed in the Pacific, a few short-term victories does not necessarily mean the victory in a long term war nor does it demonstrate any lasting superiority of Japanese forces.

Hirohito was very sidelined during the war, he had little if any authority over anything and couldn't have spoken out against the military. Again, he is emperor, his complicity in a few of the things going on at the time does not necessarily make him the leader who ordered all of such things, Japan was lead pretty much by the clique of militarists of which Tojo was one of the most prominent figures. He's head of state not head of government, head of state is a ceremonial position, he did not command troops, he did not set Japan's policies, and he went along with trends of the time because he didn't really have much choice in the matter, ultimately the Japanese people would hear what the militarists wanted them to, emperor in agreement or not.

 

[Roslin's Wig]

if it's an argument over whose navy is better it's Britain plain and simple, that really shouldn't be up for debate.

Why shouldn't it be up for debate?

Again, he is emperor, his complicity in a few of the things going on at the time does not necessarily make him the leader who ordered all of such things,

There is evidence that Hirohito gave the order to the Okinawan population to commit mass suicide rather than surrender to the Americans. Many of them jumped off the sea cliffs, or killed themselves with grenades (sent to them from Tokyo). Hirohito personally gave that order, he didn't just sign a paper that Tojo put in front of him.

He wasn't just complicit, he was guilty as sin.

He's head of state not head of government, head of state is a ceremonial position, he did not command troops,

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know much about "The Japs", as you call them.

The Emperor was the commander-in-chief of the army and the head of the civilian government. On paper, he was the god-king of Japan.
Of course, it never worked that way in real life. The fascist military leaders had a lot of power over Japan's foreign policy, and the civilian government became pretty much powerless towards the end. But even though Emperor Mickey Mouse took the easiest option and went along with the military-industrial complex, it's still ridiculous to think he was an innocent Tojo-puppet.

 

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Why shouldn't it be up for debate?

Because the British Navy had kind of a tradition of being the strongest European navy around and because they made the complicit choice to focus their forces (and therefore their navy) on defeating Germany before defeating Japan so the idea that Japan's impressive albeit short-term victories completely and totally demonstrated Japanese military superiority is a mite fallacious? Japan didn't have the industrial capacity to take on Britain, Britain could replenish its losses, Japan could not do so as easily. Plus British and Commonwealth vessels in the Pacific started getting much nicer service records towards the later years, and this wasn't just riding on American coattails either.

Japanese vessels occasionally had some pretty glaring issues, notably the wooden flight decks Japanese carriers were equipped with, it cost them a lot of their fleet at Midway.

There is evidence that Hirohito gave the order to the Okinawan population to commit mass suicide rather than surrender to the Americans. Many of them jumped off the sea cliffs, or killed themselves with grenades (sent to them from Tokyo). Hirohito personally gave that order, he didn't just sign a paper that Tojo put in front of him.

He wasn't just complicit, he was guilty as sin.

Never said he was innocent, just said he didn't have that much of a role in comparison to other Japanese leaders. The emperor couldn't and wouldn't have been tried anyway if the US wanted to have any chance of having a peaceful occupation of Japan so his "guilt" as bad as it certainly is would never have been much of an issue.

Of course, I wouldn't expect you to know much about "The Japs", as you call them.

Personal attacks? Now that just isn't necessary.

and[/I] the head of the civilian government. On paper, he was the god-king of Japan.

Of course, it never worked that way in real life. The fascist military leaders had a lot of power over Japan's foreign policy, and the civilian government became pretty much powerless towards the end. But even though Emperor Mickey Mouse took the easiest option and went along with the military-industrial complex, it's still ridiculous to think he was an innocent Tojo-puppet.

Not saying he wasn't sympathetic or that he didn't outright participate in various Imperial Japanese atrocities, just saying when it came to war crimes and horrific atrocities the people who deserved punishment had done a lot worse and a lot more than he had. The emperor was propaganda support who gave support to the militarists who basically got a free hand in running Japanese policy.

 

[Elfwine]

Non taken, I do prefer discussion of issues over comedy on a serious topic as this.

Alrighty.

German army in this time period was the best army, they had, by modern standards, massive faults. But the idea was right. They had the right idea and still fleshing out the bugs. While the Italian army was wrong on the very basic deep level. Italian army was fundamentally flawed for the situation it was in, to such a deep and all encompassing failure in planning, their performance was near miraculous considering how deeply flawed their system was.

The idea was not "right". The Germany army was far less good than it should have been and the fault was that of a certain crackpot dictator.

The basic concept of "the blitz" came, in large part, from Italy. Given right doctrinal direction in 33-36 and a shift to a high mobile offensive war from a low mobility defensive alpine war and Italy would be a different beast entirely during WW2. The fundamental flaw in the Italian army was that it was designed for an entirely different conflict than what it was used in. German army was designed for exactly the conflict it was used in. Therefore German dilution was secondary since they had the primary system right. While Italian Dilution was terminal since a diluted army is slower to adapt when the original goal is found to be inadequate. Or in other words. A trained well equipped army is quicker to adapt than a poorly trained militia army.

Except for the Wehrmacht not being well equipped, the Italian army being even worse equipped and not even adequate in a basic military way.

How many much in terms of % can you purhase for one armor division by selling one infantry division?

Not very much. From The Germany Army 1933-1945 "...a panzer division cost around fifteen times as much to equip and maintain as an infantry division". So assuming Italian armor divisions are expensive relative to the infantry as German ones...

See the problem?

Depending on how you look at it, if you reduce Italian Divs from ~70 to say ~30 you could have a massive overhaul of the remaining forces. Italy did trade as did any other country. What I mean is that they need not produce everything, only import what they need. Italian trade at this point was mostly in basic goods but if you have enough money to poorely arm 70 divs, you have enough to arm 20-30 divs well. Larger garrison force, smaller regular army, larger motor-mech-arm with better equipment is possible. They cant build much of it themselves but they can trade for it in exchange. Austria would be a good trade pre anschluss and Germany post. By 1940 before DW Italy could have Pz III's or IV's. Especially since Italy produced food for export in this period(not much mind you), something that Germany sorely needed.

Not really. Equipping them well would be a very large upgrade of across the board. And what are they going to offer in exchange for these? This is an enormous investment.

Food exports alone won't raise the capital for modernizing the army.

Italy need not be anywhere NEAR German level of competence or industrial developement to dislodge UK in 1940 from Eqypt/Levant/Iraq.

While it may or may not need to be as high, it definitely needs to be much higher than OTL.

I would not call it a huge POD as it is just one guy changing one opinion. To go for a small efficient army over a large ineffective army. If it requires the collaberation of a large group of people to produce the otucome. Say for example assuming that Italy developed the A bomb by 1944 then yes, it would be a huge POD. But really think about it. Is it truly a large POD if it takes one guy that is present with two almost equally supported models to adopt one over the other when both have large support? If that constitutes a large POD then we truly disagree on what is a large POD.

Because your idea of a large POD is that if it only involves one person, its not a big deal. No matter how big a change is made to that person.

Even if Mussolini does support a sleek, efficient army (my phrase again), Italy doesn't have the resources to make one - either with foreign imports or native production.

Where on the map would you say the allies can stop Italy if Alexandria and Cairo falls? Suez? If, for the sake of this POD, the Italian army is as mechanized as i propose...

Then you have massively changed the situation relative to OTL. Not even the German army you praise highly is heavily mechanicized.

... and they follow the UK army as it withdraws across Eqypt, while at the same time Iraq mutinies, Syria-Lebanon leaves the allies and all that is left is the Suez with no strategic mobility, Axis ability to land in Lebanon and Syria. With Greece in Axis hands. I would find the Allies very hard pressed to hold onto Suez. At the very least Italy could make any ship transit through Suez suicide for the ships. That would effectively encircle Cypros and make ship based transfers of forces to Syria-Lebanon possible, and even likely. That would mean that the allies would find themselves on the coast of present day Israel, without naval superiority, hit by the luftwaffe and attacked from both across the suez and down through the coast and behind from Iraq. Their position is unteneble and will collapse. UK would lose mid-east and withdraw down through the Nile. Potentially bringing countries like Saudi-Arabia to the axis sphere, and Turkey. Though very unlikely.

Italian Airforce was, for the most part, truly a joke. But airbases in Iraq with free convoy in E-Med and the luftwaffe can do a great deal of the work alongside Italian airplanes. Enough anyway to render Baku effectively out of the game. Nothing like trying to build refineries and oildrills in a hurry under firebombing.

Nothing like trying to accomplish any firebombing with the Italian airforce being a minimal threat. You are greatly overestimating its ability to do any good. Also, the Luftwaffe is pretty overstretched with its OTL missions, now you're making it do even more?

True, at the present the Italian armor was a Joke, with a capital J. Is it so hard to belive a POD where Mussolini realizes this too and purchases say 300-500 PZ III's and 100-200 PZ IV's, a larger amount of AC's and older PZ and the training and equipment for them before DW? Assuming they sell EVERYTHING for 10-20 divs of infantry and demobilize them. That would be enough to take 3-5 Italian divs and bring them to the German Armor level. Can you imagine what happens during Italian Invasion of Eqypt in 1940?

Mussolini realizing its a problem? Relatively easy. Mussolini being able to do something about it? Very, very, very hard. You'd need to get rid of 10-20 German divisions of infantry (as in, with that amount of spending per division) to equip one panzer division sized force. With Italian divisions? I don't know how many more, but quite a lot.

Thus, trade for what you cant produce in high quality and build what you can.

Trade using what? Italy doesn't have enough to raise the money for this. Build what it can? Essentially nothing, in other words?

Literally all it needs to do is stop use of Vladivostok and tie down any portion of the soviet army long enough for Germany to force a peace treaty that includes oil to Japan. This is a large POD by my definition as it would require changing the minds of at least Hitler to propose such a pact to the Japanese, and for the Japanese to accept it. Thus, this is a large POD, tho possible still unlikely. If the Japanese can be convinced that Germany will win before 1942 when Japan runs out of oil and the peace will include trade of oil to Japan they MIGHT go for it. But that requires an army dominated war council and better coordination. Unlikely but possible.

Very, very, very unlikely.

Nazis did things they way they did basically for one reason. The two people in charge wanted them done that way. If the Nazi states were run in a way where the opinion of more than 1 person mattered worth damn, it would be a different debate entirely, but they werent. All it really takes for standardization to happen is for Hitler to say it happens. It does take time and effort so starting standardization in 1941 a few months before barbarossa would fail. But the concept of standardization of military equipment is not a drastic design change.

The problem is that the necessary POD to get such a change is drastic.

In terms of design philosophy it is considerably less than blizkrieg, CAS or even gas chambers. All it would really take is back in the 1930's when the Nazi's were designing the army from the ground up, they take alook at the logistics for more than 5 minutes.

Which would take radically different Nazis. Not to mention the idea that blitzkrieg represents something special (Strongly recommend Cooper's book mentioned above here).

I am not suggesting they build jet fighters in 1939. What I am suggesting is that they make one tactical improvement to their planning, and that is standardization. The implementation is hard and will take years and should be started 1935 or so. But the POD that it IS started is not hard. As to the effectiveness or organizedness of Hitler and Nazism. I would point to the fact that they did EVERYTHING in an effective and organized manner. Right down from the mass produced gas chambers to the culture of mass duty. A step from everyone wearing jack boots to everyone having similar equipment on the front is not large.

They did everything in an effective and organized manner when it came to social control. When it came to building up for war? Anything but. Look at the Luftwaffe and marvel at how anyone can be that incompetent. Then realize that Goering is Hitler's #2 man - by Hitler's choice.

Especially since it is a tactically smart decision and is in my opinion, in line with the nazi ideology. Not against it.

Sure, if the Nazi ideology was something that made sense.

Equipping all Axis minors with better spoils would require less than 1 German Panzer army. Significantly less so in fact. The good thing with this, from a german perspective is that it will be someone else doing the dying.

You really don't get how underequipped the Panzer divisions in the field are, do you. For instance, by November 6 (in the Barbarossa campaign) "the seventeen panzer divisions had been reduced to the effectiveness of only six".

To put it in another way. The axis minors had millions of men in the field, most of whom were not very inspired due to lack of gear and motivation. How many of those would be better motivated if the germans actually provided them with GOOD equipment? The increase in motivation would, in my opinion, offset the cost of decreased striking power to the Germans. In the end the increased power of the minors would be greater than the loss to the Germans. This, of course is purely hypothetical and you could be right.

The problem is that, as stated, the Germans don't have the equipment to spare. Now, if the Germans had a choice between say an extra couple panzer divisions or beefing up their so-called (I use so-called given how they were used and abused) allies, maybe it would be worth asking about. But they didn't have to begin with.

In my opinion, no, they weren't. An incompetent ruler can not accomplish the level of conquest the Nazi's did. The same incompetents managed to pull of Molotov-rippentrop, humble the largest land army in the world, both France and SU. Nearly strangle UK and occupy or effectively subject the entire continental europe to their whim. How difficult is it for the same people that signed a temporary peace in 1939 to do so again in 1941?

And they also managed to declare war on the United States, launch a land war in Asia, run the economy into the ground trying to build up at a frenzied pass, rely on out of date equipment and dear God the Luftwaffe sucks - seriously, competent leaders would have done better.

Signing a peace that lasts two years prior to invading is not promising for seriously considering peace - particularly once they feel they're doing so well they can take it all.

Stalin offered it, all it takes and I mean ALL it takes is for Germany to take it and be content and the war in Europe is effectively over. For them to take it is no different than Molotov-Ribbentrop, a brilliant diplomatic move to stabilize one front so they can focus on another, the UK. And now, Germany has Ukrainian Grain too.

For them to take is a lot different given the different circumstances. Not to mention that being content would take even more difference.

Here is the fundemental point of difference. I do not believe Hitler was insane in the tactical or strategic level by 41. Yes by 43-44 he was beyond anything that could be called sanity. Due in large part to being medicated with... not so healthy things.

In 1941 Hitler was still very much the same vile "demonic" man he had always been, capable and in fact genious in the use of feign retreats and cloak and dagger. By this point he was losing it slowly but was still very much capable of it.

Hardly. His no-retreat order is a sign his grasp on reality is already shaken.

Stalin was definitely up there in "sociopathic meglomaniac monsters" But he held the cold war for years and didnt blink.

Stalin was not out for world conquest and convinced that he was commanding superhumans who could do anything. The Austrian corporal was.

And here is also the point of difference. In my opinion Hitler was a cold calculating psychopath who could very well accept what is proposed if he believes that it would benefit him in the long run. But the difference is in how we view him. In my opinion he was a brilliant leader who was one of the most "demonic" people the world has ever seen, he managed to occupy the entire european continent and was brought down mostly by sheer luck and if anything, his meth medicine. Many people seem to think he was a nutterbutter who just happaned to conquer the continental Europe and nearly usher in a dark age the likes of which has not been seen since the 1100.

Because he was a nutter. Sheer luck? Hardly. Certainly was there, but vastly greater industrial weight had more to do with it.

Hitler accepted tactical defeat after the beer hall putz, he accepted tactical defeat in BOB, he almost accepted defeat in Narvik. Many times when an obstacle was placed in front of him he stopped, retreated and came back stronger until he got what he wanted. This is a person who was used to retreats, falling back and coming back stronger. In my opinion the reason this changes was that hitler in 1942 was not the Hitler of 1938. Why? In my opinion two things, stress and Meth.

If Hitler was truly used to retreats in this regard, the German army would not have been issued a hold at all costs order in 1941. That marks a diseased mind - whether its from stress and meth or some other form of insanity is an interesting discussion, but one has to note that Hitler chose to listen to the doctor you (think it was you) mentioned.

If anything Hitler before 1938 was a remarkably cool calm calculating man, this same man agreed to a non aggression pact with his worse enemy, someone who led a nation he swore to destroy only a few years before, his main enemy. Hitler had NO trouble accepting short term defeat for long term gain. His deterioration in 1939-1945, to me, speaks of a man in the grips of a meth induced psychosis that slowly ate him up from the inside.

If anything the reason the allies won the war was Hitlers poisoning via Meth. But, this as with antyhing else, is up for debate. In my opinion Axis winning the war was uncomfortably close, a photo finish.

I'm 110% certain you don't mean to sound like a Hitler fanboy, but when you say "the reason the Allies won the war was Hitler's poisoning on meth" and ignore the staggering odds against German victory - look at the economics/industrial stuff for instance - you do. And I mean that as a criticism of your arguments on that it would be quite possible for the Axis to win, not attempting to say you like/admire him.

I wouldn't say Hitler was an idiot. But he had a grasp on reality that went from erratic to delusional.

So here's a modest challenge for you, if you don't mind.

Take a good look at the Luftwaffe. Picked because this is an area that is particularly disgustingly incompetent.

Explain how competent men do what Goering did when it came to decisions ranging from how it was run, to designs, to strategy. Goering is about as fit to run the Luftwaffe as a blind man to describe a rainbow.

You need a POD very early on (or someone who didn't take up advocating them to do so in this timeline, which would not be easy) for German to have strategic bombers thanks to those things. That really ought to say something.

 

[CalBear]

Overall the Italians could have lasted the longest. They, of the three players, were the ones with the least to gain from engaging the Western democracies head on.

The Reich was pretty much doomed from the minute that Hitler decided to stab Stalin in the back before either defeating (pretty unlikely) or coming to some sort of accommodation (still unlikely, but less so) with the UK. Deciding to strap on the U.S. at the same time as the USSR and UK just made it even uglier.

The Japanese were pretty well screwed from the word go. They would eventually have been worn down by the Chinese (too much China to conquer with too few Japanese troops to do the job) and managed to paint themselves into a corner with the U.S. with no reasonable way to escape.

None of the Fascist states was really going to be able to make a serious go of it, not if they remained fascist. They were all too poor, too small, and too poorly led to hang with the big dogs (sort of like the USSR but without a reasonable empire and raw material base to keep them afloat).

As to the naval debate - The key is where the fight happens. Move both fleets to a mythical neutral patch of ocean and it comes down to the weather. Really lousy weather, like you have in the North Sea, and the RN has a very good chance in from 1937 until late 1941. After the Yamato shakes down, even the weather isn't enough. In good weather, the RN is just about SOL by early 1940. After mid-1942 the question becomes almost meaningless thanks to American intervention.

The USN whittled the IJN down on the one hand, and with the USN in the show the RN devoted much more of its building program to small surface combatants and ASW assets.

BTW: There are several threads that discuss this issue in some detail floating around the post 1900 forum.